The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of safeguarding the interest of society and preventing the accused from influencing witnesses and hampering the trial in cases involving serious offenses.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Present petition has been filed under section 482 and 439(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order and consequential bail granted to accused/respondent vide order/judgment dated 20.06.2020 passed by Sh.Vinod Yadav, learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in pursuance to FIR No.134/2020 dated 05.03.2020 registered at Police Station Dayal Pur, Delhi for the offences punishable under sections 147/148/149/307/395/436/ 455/201/114/505/153-A/120-B IPC.

2. The case of the respondent/accused is that he is an Educationist and is involved in imparting education to the various sections of the population. He runs and manages various schools like the Rajdhani Public School and Victoria Public School and has no criminal antecedents at all. This fact had been enquired from the Investigating Officer during the course of the Bail hearing and has been admitted by the Investigating Officer and duly recorded in the Bail Order dated 20.06.2020. The Learned Sessions Judge also recorded that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, the Respondent has been running the said Schools for last 18 years without any complaint so far. However, to only stall his release from the jail, the Police authorities have falsely implicated him in another FIR No.73/2020 and arrested him on 22.06.2020, the day, the Respondent was to be released on Bail. These actions of the police authorities are illegal and malafide. The Respondent is seeking redressal of such illegal action separately.

3. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had also rejected the request of police remand in case FIR No.73/2020 by a detailed order dated 24.06.2020. In addition, the Respondent had never absconded. As per the Charge Sheet, the respondent had come to the office of the Crime Branch office for interrogation on being called by the Police. The Accused had always been present during the investigation and had joined investigation.

4. Further submitted, the learned Sessions Court while granting the Bail vide the Impugned Order had looked into the records and recorded that the CDR Records of the Mobile Phone of the Respondent showed that on the date of the alleged incident on 24.02.2020, he had called 6 times from his mobile phone to the Police Authorities for help and made complaint about the damage caused to his School.

5. Mr.Gupta submitted that the Respondent had been arrested on 09.03.2020 by the police authorities and after investigation the Charge Sheet has been filed on 03.06.2020. The trial of the case is likely to take time, therefore, the Respondent ought to be granted bail in the present case. Moreover, it is well-established law that there is a distinction between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted. The normal rule is that if bail is granted then it should not be cancelled. Only in case of "cogent" and "overwhelming" reasons, a bail granted can be cancelled. The present petition does not make out any ground let alone any "cogent" or "overwhelming" ground for cancellation of bail. Thus, the present petition deserves an immediate and forthright dismissal.

6. To strengthen the case of respondent/accused, learned senior advocate has relied upon the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"9. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail."

7. Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State